6 ms·

I would rather fly a plane that doesn't get hit, the A-10 is obsolete.

by rjsw 6y ago

tyingq 6y ago
I suspect it will be drones that eventually replace it, rather than another manned aircraft.
- rjsw 6y ago
  The F-16 was better at doing the kind of missions in Iraq that lead to the damage in your linked article.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    I don't feel like the F-16 is particularly great for close air support. Fighters are better for the A-10's original role as a tank killer, but that hasn't really been its role for some time now.
    - rjsw 6y ago
      Modern close air support means dropping smart bombs from high altitude, to do this you need to be able to quickly get to the right place, the A-10 is too slow to be able to do this. One of the most effective bomb trucks is the B-1B.
      - neverartful 6y ago
        I don't believe that's accurate. From everything I've ever read about the A-10 and close air support, the 'close' aspect means that you're close enough to get positive visual identification of friend and foe. Additionally, it means slower speed because the fast movers are too fast for this task. The third important factor that's commonly mentioned is length of time that the plane can loiter on station to assist the ground troops. A B-1B (while being highly impressive in its own capabilities) is poorly suited for these things.
        greedo 6y ago
        Actually the B1-B has done a huge amount of the sorties for CAS. It can respond quickly, has a huge weapons load, and combined with targeting pods, can just sit above a fight plinking targets. It's loiter time is much better than 90% of the fighters over Afghanistan. The idea of getting down in the weeds (below 1K AGL) is not how CAS is done anymore. It's extremely rare to get that close. It's not how the A-10 is typically used.
        valuearb 6y ago
        Have we outlawed inclement weather? Or just leave the gomers to their own devices until the cloud cover clears?
        greedo 6y ago
        Inclement weather would obstruct the vision of the A-10 pilots too. Today's CAS is largely a forward observer calling in a grid/GPS coordinate or lasing a target.
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Inclement weather would obstruct the vision of the A-10 pilots too. That's not generally true. For example, in WW2 the B-29 started at 20,000', and because Japan often has clouds starting at 5,000', so they had to fly under the clouds to see targets. The US Air Force is not going to allow their pilots to do that today, so that's a good situation for the Army to operate A-10s.
        caycep 6y ago
        how are pentagon planners dealing w/ emerging tech hacking/jamming/spoofing GPS signals? I recall something along this sort being posted to HN a few days back, as well as this being perhaps the means of how Iran captured a US drone several years ago...
        greedo 6y ago
myrandomcomment 6y ago
On what basis do you say that? The purpose of this plane is close in air support with the ability to hang around in the middle of a battle. All of the replacement jets can fly over drop some munitions and they fly off. If you are lucky they did the job, but if they missed or the target survived you have to call them back. The A10 comes in, chews everything you pointed out to rubble, asked you if they got it and if not they are still there and adjust and do it again. In a long running firefight in mountains and canyons the ability to point the finger of god at any random outcropping as needed over and over as you move down the path is priceless.
- rjsw 6y ago
  The A-10 can't fly at low level in the middle of a battle or it will be shot down by a SAM. They have been modified to be able to drop smart munitions from higher altitudes but are too slow to get to where they might be needed.
  - rfreytag 6y ago
    Quoting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Gulf_War_and_Balkans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... "From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s." ...and... "The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s should the Air Force retire them" I am not sure why SAMs aren't the threat to the A-10s that they were to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban can't afford them? Also SAMs require training and degrade quickly if not maintained.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      There's a couple of pages that are pretty comprehensive lists of aircraft lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have tables near the bottom. If it's accurate, one A-10 was shot down by a SAM in Iraq, and that was the only A-10 combat loss across both conflicts. Iraq: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... Afghanistan: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_l...
exabrial 6y ago
It has a glass cockpit, Link 16, sniper pod integration, and SDB integration is coming soon. That's more advanced that most countries air forces. The only thing really obsolete unfortunately is the engines.
- greedo 6y ago
  The engines are perfect for its mission. High efficiency which translates into long loiter times.
  - exabrial 6y ago
    Agree. Spare parts are the issue. Without googling I believe there is another aircraft in the Navy that uses the same engine but it's been retired? If I recall correctly as well it's used in some business jets.
    - ckozlowski 6y ago
      S-3 Viking I believe.
ckozlowski 6y ago
I feel ya. The A-10 has so many fans (and for good reason), that it's nigh impossible for anyone to believe it's obsolete. But you're right, and you're perhaps being unfairly downvoted. There's a great article here breaking this down: https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-a... To summarize: - The A-10 was designed for an era when SAMs weren't as sophisticated as they are today. The GAU-8 cannon was to be an affordable weapon for eliminating tanks, but even as it was entering service it was soon clear that modern systems were outranging the cannon, and the Maverick soon became the primary anti-armor weapon of the A-10 due to it's standoff range. (source: colleague who was an A-10 test pilot (in the only two-seater made no less!) and links I can't find now) - This proved true in Iraq (see link above) where the A-10 was getting shot up quite a bit against frontline units, and F-16s with their higher speed were sent in instead. It's a good reminder here that again, the cannon is no longer the primary weapon against armor in a high-threat environment. When that's taken into account, the A-10 and F-16 have similar weapons capabilities. - The A-10s primary advantage in a low-threat environment is it's high endurance time. Here, it's being squeeze from two sides: Low-cost COIN aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano, and high altitude bombers with targeting pods like the B-52. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2qPzl1gtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2qPzl1gtM). The A-29 is very effective in the counterinsurgency role for a fraction of the cost where it's not running against sophisticated AA systems. On the other end, you have the B-52, loitering at 35,000+ with an enormous load of munitions that can be called down on command and well above the range of man-portable systems. - Check this video here of the late John McCain and a hearing with the Air Force. I've FFed the time to the general's answer to him. McCain, experienced as he was, is looking at this from a prior era here, and I think the General proves it. https://youtu.be/_up7IHd3LDs?t=218 https://youtu.be/_up7IHd3LDs?t=218 The Air Force, feeling the budget squeeze, is rightfully concluding that the A-10 can go. They can perform the COIN/light ground attack role with much cheaper aircraft or by leveraging the huge advances in targeting with pods attached to the B-52, B-1, and F-15/F-16. At the high-threat end, they have the F-35, who's stealth, ECM, and sensors make it much more survivable than the A-10. (No, really. It does.) And lastly, if anyone wants to see what this actually plays out like, try the A-10 simulator in DCS. It's a fantastic module. And then better yet, fly a mission or two on the public servers with the A-10 in a mixed threat environment. It'll be eyeopening. And regarding those? I flew as part of a group online where we'd design and then fight realistic scenarios for our online wing. Props to our A-10 crews, but I got to see (simulated of course) just how limited these craft sometimes were. They were incredibly slow, and so took forever to get to the operational area, meaning the rest of our fighters had to either take off late, leaving them uncovered, or take off early and hit the tanker several times so that they'd be in the strike area to cover when they arrived. With a full load they were sitting ducks most of the time; jinking away from modern SAMs was practically impossible unless you were really sticking close to a ridgeline, which limited where you could go. Often the A-10s would get to the area after a long cruise, only to find some threats still up. They'd then have to loiter somewhere while an F/A-18 with HARMs came to clean up. We had a lot of aircraft overhead and around the A-10 to give it a role in the mission, whereas a package of 2-4 F-16s/F/A-18s with Mavericks could accomplish the same. (Me? I flew the Viggen. We don't need no escorts, Swedish Dorito go "zoom".) Anyways, hope this helps illustrate the issue for some of your detractors.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
You're actually correct. Against modern air defenses the A-10 would have a very difficult if not impossible mission. Luckily we don't fight wars against superpowers and if we do the A-10 won't be the first one in. And as cool as that gun is- it's overrated. Pilots shouldn't have to free-gun. Most of the footage of these guns show them missing a lot.
- scanny 6y ago
  Well the original plan would have put it as the first one in against a peer adversary [0]. The rate of attrition against '70s/'80s vintage air defence would have been horrific, can you imagine what it would be like now? [0] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to-last-two-weeks-against-the-soviets-1ebff9bfa4df https://medium.com/war-is-boring/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to...

I would rather fly a plane that doesn't get hit, the A-10 is obsolete.

by rjsw 6y ago

I would rather fly a plane that doesn't get hit, the A-10 is obsolete.

tyingq 6y ago

I suspect it will be drones that eventually replace it, rather than another manned aircraft.

rjsw 6y ago
The F-16 was better at doing the kind of missions in Iraq that lead to the damage in your linked article.
- tyingq 6y ago
  I don't feel like the F-16 is particularly great for close air support. Fighters are better for the A-10's original role as a tank killer, but that hasn't really been its role for some time now.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Modern close air support means dropping smart bombs from high altitude, to do this you need to be able to quickly get to the right place, the A-10 is too slow to be able to do this. One of the most effective bomb trucks is the B-1B.
    - neverartful 6y ago
      I don't believe that's accurate. From everything I've ever read about the A-10 and close air support, the 'close' aspect means that you're close enough to get positive visual identification of friend and foe. Additionally, it means slower speed because the fast movers are too fast for this task. The third important factor that's commonly mentioned is length of time that the plane can loiter on station to assist the ground troops. A B-1B (while being highly impressive in its own capabilities) is poorly suited for these things.
      - greedo 6y ago
        Actually the B1-B has done a huge amount of the sorties for CAS. It can respond quickly, has a huge weapons load, and combined with targeting pods, can just sit above a fight plinking targets. It's loiter time is much better than 90% of the fighters over Afghanistan. The idea of getting down in the weeds (below 1K AGL) is not how CAS is done anymore. It's extremely rare to get that close. It's not how the A-10 is typically used.
        valuearb 6y ago
        Have we outlawed inclement weather? Or just leave the gomers to their own devices until the cloud cover clears?
        greedo 6y ago
        Inclement weather would obstruct the vision of the A-10 pilots too. Today's CAS is largely a forward observer calling in a grid/GPS coordinate or lasing a target.
        redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Inclement weather would obstruct the vision of the A-10 pilots too. That's not generally true. For example, in WW2 the B-29 started at 20,000', and because Japan often has clouds starting at 5,000', so they had to fly under the clouds to see targets. The US Air Force is not going to allow their pilots to do that today, so that's a good situation for the Army to operate A-10s.
        caycep 6y ago
        how are pentagon planners dealing w/ emerging tech hacking/jamming/spoofing GPS signals? I recall something along this sort being posted to HN a few days back, as well as this being perhaps the means of how Iran captured a US drone several years ago...
        greedo 6y ago

myrandomcomment 6y ago

On what basis do you say that? The purpose of this plane is close in air support with the ability to hang around in the middle of a battle. All of the replacement jets can fly over drop some munitions and they fly off. If you are lucky they did the job, but if they missed or the target survived you have to call them back. The A10 comes in, chews everything you pointed out to rubble, asked you if they got it and if not they are still there and adjust and do it again. In a long running firefight in mountains and canyons the ability to point the finger of god at any random outcropping as needed over and over as you move down the path is priceless.

rjsw 6y ago
The A-10 can't fly at low level in the middle of a battle or it will be shot down by a SAM. They have been modified to be able to drop smart munitions from higher altitudes but are too slow to get to where they might be needed.
- rfreytag 6y ago
  Quoting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Gulf_War_and_Balkans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... "From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s." ...and... "The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s should the Air Force retire them" I am not sure why SAMs aren't the threat to the A-10s that they were to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Maybe the Taliban can't afford them? Also SAMs require training and degrade quickly if not maintained.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    There's a couple of pages that are pretty comprehensive lists of aircraft lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have tables near the bottom. If it's accurate, one A-10 was shot down by a SAM in Iraq, and that was the only A-10 combat loss across both conflicts. Iraq: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_... Afghanistan: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_losses_in_Afghanistan https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coalition_aircraft_l...

exabrial 6y ago

It has a glass cockpit, Link 16, sniper pod integration, and SDB integration is coming soon. That's more advanced that most countries air forces. The only thing really obsolete unfortunately is the engines.

greedo 6y ago
The engines are perfect for its mission. High efficiency which translates into long loiter times.
- exabrial 6y ago
  Agree. Spare parts are the issue. Without googling I believe there is another aircraft in the Navy that uses the same engine but it's been retired? If I recall correctly as well it's used in some business jets.
  - ckozlowski 6y ago
    S-3 Viking I believe.

ckozlowski 6y ago

I feel ya. The A-10 has so many fans (and for good reason), that it's nigh impossible for anyone to believe it's obsolete. But you're right, and you're perhaps being unfairly downvoted. There's a great article here breaking this down: https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/ https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-a... To summarize: - The A-10 was designed for an era when SAMs weren't as sophisticated as they are today. The GAU-8 cannon was to be an affordable weapon for eliminating tanks, but even as it was entering service it was soon clear that modern systems were outranging the cannon, and the Maverick soon became the primary anti-armor weapon of the A-10 due to it's standoff range. (source: colleague who was an A-10 test pilot (in the only two-seater made no less!) and links I can't find now) - This proved true in Iraq (see link above) where the A-10 was getting shot up quite a bit against frontline units, and F-16s with their higher speed were sent in instead. It's a good reminder here that again, the cannon is no longer the primary weapon against armor in a high-threat environment. When that's taken into account, the A-10 and F-16 have similar weapons capabilities. - The A-10s primary advantage in a low-threat environment is it's high endurance time. Here, it's being squeeze from two sides: Low-cost COIN aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano, and high altitude bombers with targeting pods like the B-52. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2qPzl1gtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2qPzl1gtM). The A-29 is very effective in the counterinsurgency role for a fraction of the cost where it's not running against sophisticated AA systems. On the other end, you have the B-52, loitering at 35,000+ with an enormous load of munitions that can be called down on command and well above the range of man-portable systems. - Check this video here of the late John McCain and a hearing with the Air Force. I've FFed the time to the general's answer to him. McCain, experienced as he was, is looking at this from a prior era here, and I think the General proves it. https://youtu.be/_up7IHd3LDs?t=218 https://youtu.be/_up7IHd3LDs?t=218 The Air Force, feeling the budget squeeze, is rightfully concluding that the A-10 can go. They can perform the COIN/light ground attack role with much cheaper aircraft or by leveraging the huge advances in targeting with pods attached to the B-52, B-1, and F-15/F-16. At the high-threat end, they have the F-35, who's stealth, ECM, and sensors make it much more survivable than the A-10. (No, really. It does.) And lastly, if anyone wants to see what this actually plays out like, try the A-10 simulator in DCS. It's a fantastic module. And then better yet, fly a mission or two on the public servers with the A-10 in a mixed threat environment. It'll be eyeopening. And regarding those? I flew as part of a group online where we'd design and then fight realistic scenarios for our online wing. Props to our A-10 crews, but I got to see (simulated of course) just how limited these craft sometimes were. They were incredibly slow, and so took forever to get to the operational area, meaning the rest of our fighters had to either take off late, leaving them uncovered, or take off early and hit the tanker several times so that they'd be in the strike area to cover when they arrived. With a full load they were sitting ducks most of the time; jinking away from modern SAMs was practically impossible unless you were really sticking close to a ridgeline, which limited where you could go. Often the A-10s would get to the area after a long cruise, only to find some threats still up. They'd then have to loiter somewhere while an F/A-18 with HARMs came to clean up. We had a lot of aircraft overhead and around the A-10 to give it a role in the mission, whereas a package of 2-4 F-16s/F/A-18s with Mavericks could accomplish the same. (Me? I flew the Viggen. We don't need no escorts, Swedish Dorito go "zoom".) Anyways, hope this helps illustrate the issue for some of your detractors.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

You're actually correct. Against modern air defenses the A-10 would have a very difficult if not impossible mission. Luckily we don't fight wars against superpowers and if we do the A-10 won't be the first one in. And as cool as that gun is- it's overrated. Pilots shouldn't have to free-gun. Most of the footage of these guns show them missing a lot.

scanny 6y ago
Well the original plan would have put it as the first one in against a peer adversary [0]. The rate of attrition against '70s/'80s vintage air defence would have been horrific, can you imagine what it would be like now? [0] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to-last-two-weeks-against-the-soviets-1ebff9bfa4df https://medium.com/war-is-boring/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to...